In the previous section, we saw that while Relativism and Religious Pluralism might be trendy and “politically correct” these days, they cannot possibly be true. Relativism is self-refuting, and while all religions may be false, they cannot all be true because they make mutually exclusive claims about the way the world really is.

So which view of the world is correct? An obvious place to start in evaluating competing worldviews is to ask: does god exist? Though this question may not be provable either way in the mathematical sense of the word “proof”, there are some very rational reasons (both philosophical and scientific) to think that there is a god. Check out the following short videos for just a few of these reasons:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (4:12 min):

Leibnitz’ Contingency Argument (5:14 min):

The Fine Tuning Argument (6:26 min):

The Moral Argument (5:01 min):

The beginning of the universe, the fine tuning of the universe for life, and the existence of objective moral values and duties all give us very good reason to believe in the existence of personal and all powerful God. But an even still more fundamental question exists: why is there something (anything at all!) rather than nothing? In light of the evidence, we are left with only two options: either no one created something out of nothing, or else someone created something out of nothing. Which view is more reasonable?

Even if one day science could somehow prove beyond a doubt that the universe is past eternal, we would still be justified in asking “why does an eternal universe exist rather than nothing at all?” The fact that something exists means that there must be an un-caused Cause, a First Cause, something that can’t not exist. This is what theologians mean by “God”.

Next: Miracles and the Bible

Return to Exploring Faith

Going Further:

Resources from Reasonable Faith

Why the Universe Can’t Be Eternal in the Past 

Send this to a friend